An Artist Protests Obamas Abuse of the Constitution (Video)
Author: Brian Bolduc
Artist & Narrator: Jon McNaughton
A man, crestfallen, is sitting on a bench in front of the White House, contemplating his countrys future. At his feet lie the causes of his distress: tattered dollars, representing a weak currency, and scraps of paper, symbolizing an abused Constitution. Behind and around him stand the 43 presidents of the United States, most of whom are outraged. One of them, James Madison, reaches pitifully for the ground, trying to collect the shards of American greatness. Unfortunately, he cant retrieve our founding document from the dust, for its beneath the foot of Barack Obama.
The title of this portrait is The Forgotten Man, and its creator is Jon McNaughton, a 42-year-old artist from Spanish Fork, Utah. McNaughton unveiled the piece last Tuesday with a video describing its origin and a website explaining its meaning. For a long time, I didnt know if I wanted to paint this picture, because I worried that it might be too controversial, McNaughton intones in the video. Now, however, hes courting controversy.
The Forgotten Man
A husband and father of six, McNaughton graduated in 1993 from Brigham Young University, where he studied art and design. Today, he runs the McNaughton Fine Art Company, which offers mostly landscapes and Biblical images for retail. McNaughton models his work after the French Barbizon Impressionists, artists in the mid19th century who painted scenes from the countryside in subtle shades. That said, theres nothing subtle about his latest creation.
McNaughton first conceived of the portrait after Obamacare became law in March. I was just frustrated with what was happening with Obama and the out-of-control spending, he tells NRO. As an artist, I thought this was a way to get my message out.
What is that message? I wondered, If the presidents of the past could speak to us today, what would they say to us? McNaughton explains. Clearly, they would oppose the unprecedented expansion of government. Yet the focus of the painting is the forgotten man the ordinary American. If that man doesnt get off his bench and try to change whats going on in our country . . . were on the verge of bankruptcy. That was the point I wanted to make, he says.
On McNaughtons website, you can move your cursor over the faces in the painting and read an idiosyncratic summation of each presidents tenure. Yes, each of them. For instance, George Washington, whos front and center, instituted the First Bank of the United States in 1791. But even Rutherford B. Hayes, whos in the nosebleed section, gets a blurb for increasing the governments supply of gold.
Working twelve-hour days, McNaughton spent five months researching the portrait, reading everything from Wikipedia to history books. I tried to focus on the fiscal spending of these different presidents and how it has to do with the devaluing of the dollar, he notes. I didnt go into civil rights or war.
His educational forays led him to some unconventional conclusions. For example, McNaughton criticizes the Founders for their fiscal profligacy. Our founding fathers werent adept at managing debt either, he writes on the website. In 1791, the national debt was a mere $75 million. But that is equivalent to $5.2 trillion in 2008 dollars. To be fair to the Founders, though, a revolutionary war is kind of expensive.
Despite McNaughtons good faith, the Left will censure him, and he knows it. He did his first overtly political portrait last October. Entitled One Nation under God, it shows Jesus Christ holding the Constitution while surrounded by figures from American history. The painting drove liberals bonkers. Comedian Bill Maher dubbed it Wheres Waldo for wing nuts.
I did go to the Huffington Post to see what they said, McNaughton reports. They reminded me of a junior-high-school locker room. They all want to outdo each other with the grossest comment they can think of.
Still, McNaughton thinks the opposition to this painting will be different. Whereas for the previous portrait, a viewer can accept Christs authority only on faith, in this one, the facts are the facts. The people who trash the painting say, Oh, its just another right-wing Republican. But I dont feel my position is very threatened. I feel that the truth is just behind me. If people object to the portrayal of Obama stepping on the Constitution, McNaughton reasons, hell tell them everything Obamas done to deserve being characterized that way.
McNaughton knows his political background makes him a target. A former state delegate for the Utah Republican party, he now considers himself an independent. He left the GOP because of George W. Bush, who ruined the Republican party. Accordingly, in the portrait, Bush eyes the suffering man from afar distant in location and in feeling.
But McNaughton also knows hes got a hit. Hes already sold several prints, and his video has racked up over 170,000 views on YouTube. His video for One Nation under God after spending almost a year online has garnered more than 3 million views. At the rate The Forgotten Man is going, he expects it to surpass its predecessor in popularity.
Theyre quite the conversation pieces. People will have one hanging in their house and people will come in and theres so much to talk about, McNaughton says. In The Forgotten Man, McNaughton groups the presidents into two categories: those who oppose Obamas actions, such as Washington and Madison, and those who support them, such as Franklin Roosevelt and Bill Clinton. Viewers routinely object to the placement of their favorites in either category. Its fun to have people talk about it, he says.
He hopes to keep them talking. McNaughton just started a third portrait, which he plans to release by the end of the year. This one will be more religious in tone at least, more religious than The Forgotten Man though he hints that Ive got one painting [in mind] that might be affected depending on whether Obama runs for reelection.
Whether or not Obama runs, McNaughtons art has ensured that his message wont be ignored.
McNaughton first conceived of the portrait after Obamacare became law in March. I was just frustrated with what was happening with Obama and the out-of-control spending
Why do Christians hate sick people?
Jesus was a healer. Would He say "tough shit" to someone who needed health care? Would He state that people should be healed by any means necessary?
I really am sick to death of people wearing Christ on their sleeve while being so unwilling to have a modicum of compassion for the ill that would translate into assuring that they have access to medical care.
Jesus was a healer. Would He say "tough shit" to someone who needed health care?
Apparently, it's absolutely wrong, wrong, wrong that kids with pre-existing conditions can now get health coverage. It ain't fittin'...It just ain't fittin'
You really should educate yourself to the alternatives to BIG BROTHER stepping in and taking over Suzanne, no one, especially me, wants to see any child turned down for for healthcare, yourr argument sucks, and it's a lie.
Kids with pre-existing conditions were routinely turned down for coverage before health care reform; that was meant to stop this year with the phased-in approach to health care reform. However, the insurance companies are fighting hard and are saying that they are only forced to cover kids with pre-existing conditions if that child is already part of a family plan. The insurance companies are refusing to cover kids who are not part of a family plan. That's the truth.
Ok say someone has a kid and the don't have healthcare. Say their kid gets sick and it costs a million dollars for coverage. Should they be able to go sign up for healthcare for 300 bucks a month or whatever. Then have the health care company take care of them?
Then have the health care company take care of them?
You're asking me a question, Stone? I think not. You wouldn't answer my question on a previous thread. After that, you lost the privilege of me answering your questions. It's equitable.
On the previous thread, you asked me a question and I answered it. Then I asked you a question and all you did was refuse to answer mine until I had, to your satisfaction, answered your "setting parameter" questions. It wasn't equitable and I refused to play. I'm not playing now, either.
If someone want someone wants to come here and participate in the discussions. That is fine. But when they are participating and they tell the host to basically fuck off they aren't good enough to get an answer. Then they get the reaction they get.
Traditionally, on these sites, the host isn't supposed to use their ability to ban to shape the discussion. You should have an admin name, and never discuss anything with that, and a discussion name. And then no one should know they are the same person.
Anyhoo, do whatever you like. It is amusing to me at least.
But when they are participating and they tell the host to basically fuck off they aren't good enough to get an answer. Then they get the reaction they get.
It sounded more like "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" to me.